Talk:Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(All of this entry is an archive of earlier discussions)

From the article:

Historically, Christianity has taught that all people are born contaminated with Original sin, and that nothing a person does in their life can ever get rid of this taint; this doctrine began with Paul in the New Testament, and was especially promoted by Augustine in the fourth century. Failure to get rid of this taint leads God to eternally damn these people to Hell. Only by worshipping Jesus as a saviour and son of God can a person be saved from this fate.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity never held this doctrine, and began repudiating it once they learned of it. They teach that we inherit a corrupted or damaged human nature in which the tendency to do bad is greater, but that each person is only guilty of their own sins. By participating in the life of the church, our human nature is healed and it becomes easier to do good; at the same time, we become more acutely aware of more of our shortcomings. I added this bit in another article once, I think. --Wesley
Please provide a few official sources for this statement about Eastern Orthodoxy.

First, tell me where in the New Testament you find this doctrine, and more importantly your hermeneutical method, which Christians of any stripe follow this interpretation, and which Eastern Orthodox Christians affirm or have made that interpretation.

Its not my method, its their method. I don't believe that the New Testament is divinely inpired, so I don't follow rules or beliefs derived from it. But I don't understand your perspective. All of Christianity has historically believed what I mentioned. I understand that some liberal Protestant sects have changed their beliefs in the last two centuries, many in the last 50 years. Perhaps Orthodox Chrisitianity has as well. But you seem to be asking me to "prove" that most Christians have historically believed (and still believe) that Christ is the only way to God. I don't know how to respond to this. Just read any encyclopaedia, or go to any Church. Where did you learn the contrary? Here in the USA we have hundreds of distinct Protestant Christian groups, and the vast majority teach this. Even the Catholic Church is still divided on this issue, with one person claiming that salvation is available outside Christ, while another equally ranking official denies this. Much information is available on this topic from the religioustolerance.org website RK
First of all, the Catholic Church is not "divided" on this issue, as you say--Vatican II clearly pronounced that non-Christians can attain salvation, and the current Pope has also stated this. Secondly, Quakers have never believed that only Christians attain salvation (that is to say, when Quakers even worry about the question of salvation, which they generally don't), and Quakerism is 350 years old. It is true that many Protestant churches still preach an intolerant vision of salvation, and it is also true that historically the Christian church was highly intolerant of other faiths (Catholicism used ot preach that "there is no salvation outside the church", but reversed itself on this subject at Vatican II), but the religion is also more diverse than you are making it out to be.
If we attribute something to St. Paul or the New Testament, we need to cite book, chapter and verse. In addition, just look at protestantism to see how many opposing views can be attributed to Paul, often citing the same passages in support of opposite positions. It's poor policy for an encyclopedia to enter the fray by citing the New Testament directly in support of a particular doctrine. We can cite specific passages, but should also identify the people or groups that have used the passage in that way to justify a particular belief or practice.
Paul in First Corinthians 15 specifically talks about the concept of Original Sin. He didn't give any particular name for this theology, but he describes it in detail. According to Paul, Jesus died not to merely allow people to gain eternal life, but Jesus died specifically because of "our sins". He is not talking about the sin of Adam and Eve, but about the sins of the actual audience that he is writing to. RK
Second, as Ben said, Original Sin defined as guilt that has been inherited, is NOT what the Eastern Orthodox church has taught. Nor did the Catholics before Augustine. This doctrine is much more specific than claiming that Jesus is the only way to God, and is not shared by the entire church. Methodists are a notable exception on the protestant side, going back to the 18th century, but again, you simply won't find it in the East, for at least most of the last 2000 years. But I'm talking very specifically about inherited guilt. Also, many Christians would speak more of people destroying themselves by their sins and by their rejection of God, rather than speak of God damning them to hell on a technicality. The language used matters a great deal when discussing the problem of evil, for example. --Wesley

Scripture can and has been used poorly to say almost anything; be careful to attribute interpretations of it specifically. This is also NPOV procedure; otherwise we have Wikipedia setting down a standard interpretation. I made several statements together there. A random web site confirmed that Augustine wasn't translated into Greek until the 14th century, and suggested he wasn't widely read in the East until the 17th or 18th century, when Western style education made its way to Russia. That's the easiest fact to confirm. I'll have to look harder for some official statements; ( ... goes away grumbling about being asked to prove a negative ...  ;-) ) --Wesley

Here's a somewhat extended quote from St. Iranaeus, a second century bishop and early church Father, taken from Book IV of Irenaeus Against Heresies:

Chapter XXII.-Christ Did Not Come for the Sake of the Men of One Age Only, But for All Who, Living Righteously and Piously, Had Believed Upon Him; And for Those, Too, Who Shall Believe.
1 Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion,"327 when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands.328 For this is the end of the human race inheriting God; that as in the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage, by being made subject to death; so at last, by means of the New Man, all who from the beginning [were His] disciples, having been cleansed and washed from things pertaining to death, should come to the life of God. For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean. For this reason, too, He administered food to them in a recumbent posture, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were they to whom He came to impart life. As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved."329 For this reason also were the eyes of the disciples weighed down when Christ's passion was approaching; and when, in the first instance, the Lord found them sleeping, He let it pass,-thus indicating the patience of God in regard to the state of slumber in which men lay; but coming the second time, He aroused them, and made them stand up, in token that His passion is the arousing of His sleeping disciples, on whose account "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth,"330 to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labours,331 in reference to whom He did also declare to the disciples: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what ye do see and hear."332

From what I can tell quickly skimming his writings, when he speaks of the consequences of Adam's sin, it is of the consequence of death, and he contrasts this with the consequence of Jesus Christ's death, which is resurrection and new life. There appears to be no mention of inherited guilt. It's proof by absence, but what do you expect?

True, but this quote doesn't address original sin. Most Christians have historically believed in this concept, and that most still do. Further, most Christians lived long after him. What have most Chruches and Christian denominations taught about original sin? This quote could be used as source material for coming up with a view on the subject, but it doesn't represent what any particular church teaches. Also, this quote shows that he believed that only Jesus is the way to avoid eternal death. Why would this even be necessary without original sin? RK
I think you are confusing "original sin" with a doctrine that says that everyone sins. "Original sin" is a doctrine that says that all have inherited the stain of Adam's guilt, and that was a product of Augustine's theology. That has nothing to do with a belief that everyone sins and that the penalty of sin is death. -- Egern.
To follow up, I included this quote to show that the early church talked about the first sin. Read it carefully, and it says that the consequence of the first sin, meaning Adam's, was death for all humanity. The work of Christ is to restore life to humanity, to remove a legal blot that we all inherited. This most certainly does address how early Christians viewed original sin, and it has been very formative in how the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to view sin. Elsewhere Iranaeus argues at length that when Christ rose from the dead, he freed Adam himself from death. The influence of this statement can be seen in the icon of the resurrection that is in every Orthodox church: most variations show Christ rising from the tomb, pulling after him Adam with one hand and Eve with the other. As far as "most" Christians believing in original sin, I think that Eastern Orthodoxy represents the second largest body of Christians worldwide, after the Roman Catholics. There are also a sizable minority of Protestants that reject the doctrine. --Wesley


More sources, including more recent and official statements, will have to wait a day or two. I can tell you that when Augustine's theology is mentioned by any Orthodox writer I've come across, it's to point out where he's wrong more often than not. --Wesley

Here's a relatively modern statement regarding the state of the "sinner", by St. Theophan the Recluse (1802-1894) in The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transofrmation, page 101:

We have said that the sinner is like a person who is sunk in deep slumber. Just as a person who is fast asleep will not stir and get up on his own in spite of approaching danger unles someone comes and rouses him, so will the person who is sunk in the slumber of sin not come to his senses and awaken unless divine grace comes to his aid. By the boundless mercy of God, this grace is prepared for everyone, approaches everyone in turn, and calls out clearly to each: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. 5:14).... Thus, there are three stages in the conversion of sinners to God: 1) arousal from the slumber of sin; 2) reaching the decision to give up sin and devote oneself to pleasing God; 3) vestment with power from on high for doing this in the Mysteries of Repentance and Communion." (BTW, the above is from a translation that's copyright 1996, so don't anyone go pasting it into a Wikipedia article.)

This isn't a statement of a council, but it is the statement of a bishop who is now regarded as a saint. The picture of the sinner fast asleep, then awakening, is very often used. In fact, the verse quoted from Ephesians is sung by the congregation (or perhaps choir) as a person is being baptized. Salvation for the Orthodox is not concerned with erasing an inherited "taint" or with legal formalities. It is concerned with repentance, change, and ultimately achieving union with God. I'm going to wait for questions before I go looking for more quotes. Wesley

This is a good source to describe their POV, but - and I may be wrong here - doesn't appear to directly discuss the issue. We should try to get quotes that discuss the concept of original sin. RK
Again, it shows that original sin is not significant in the Orthodox perspective of dealing with sin and salvation. But there is a quote at the Orthodox Church in America's web site that addresses it; I'll let you read it there: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/St-Augustine-and-Original-Sin.html

I'll be controversial by saying to my knowledge, the idea of original sin is only one interpretation of scripture possible among christians. It is uncontroversial to say that sin entered the world by Adam's acts. It is uncontroversial to say that Jesus is the eternal Life of God, and that believers avoid the penalty of sin by trusting in him. 'There is none righteous, no, not one' is in Romans 3:10, but it claims there to be a quote from the Jewish scriptures. (ie: 'As it is written,') In Romans, it also says 'For he that is dead is freed from sin'. (Rom 6:7) and then proceeds to argue 'sin shall no longer have dominion over you' because of the death and resurrection of Christ. 'the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Rom 6:23)

So in summary, there seems to be support for the idea that sin came into the world. There seems to be support for sin bringing death into the world. There is support for Jesus giving life. The niceties of original sin versus personal sin are not supported by this scripture. It would not be NPOV, in my point of view, to make a statement in Wikipedia to the extent of 'all Christians' believe either side.

I tried to look at the main article, and feel it states Paul supported views that I don't see evidence that he supported. -- BenBaker

I have corrected the information in this article about Original Sin, which is a different doctrine altogether than merely a belief that everyone sins. "Original Sin" is not an inherent doctrine of Christianity, but rather a very specific doctrine about the transmission of guilt through inheritance. I also clarified the point that Catholicism, as of Vatican II, accepts that salvation is available to non-Christians.

Do Catholics say they changed their beliefs or they changed them without admiting they were ever different. --Taw

As far as I know, Catholicism never admits that it has changed its official theology on anything, because that would call into question the claims it makes about itself. But the fact is that Catholicism did reverse itself on this subject, even if it doesn't admit it. -- Egern

I read the page that I was referred to, and I saw the almost the opposite of what other people were talking about. The webpage states that Orthodox Christianity does believe in original sin. They say that they believe that Adam and Even sinned, that they were punished, and that all of humanity inherits the same punishment that they got, and that only by worshipping Jesus as the messiah will the punishment be erased. This is precisely what I was saying all along. The only difference was that Catholics believe that both the sin and punishment get inherited, while the Orthodox say that only the punishment was inherited. But they agree on 3 out of 4 points on this concept. I guess to an Orthodox Christian it might be easy to overlook the the vast common ground, and see only the differences, but to a non-Christian this is virtually the same concept! Thus, this entry should indeed point out that Orthodox Christians do believe in original sin, but explain these 1 out of 4 points that they reject. [Here is part of the relevent text (copyrighted, probably) from their webpage: RK

In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair." In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
Well, I've lost track of what those 4 points are that you speak of, but I don't see your interpretation that the Orthodox Church believes that people have inherited the original sin. From what I can tell, even Jews believe that we humans no longer live in the Garden of Eden, so how is that any different from the Orthodox view that we still suffer the consequences of the original sin? According to that logic, Jews also believe in original sin! Which is, of course, not hte case at all. Orthodox doctrine doesn't say that any individual is guilty in the eyes of God of sin at the moment of conception, which is the key point of the Catholic doctrine. -- Egern
It looks to me like there are 4 points in common between Catholic and Orthodox understandings of this issue: (A) Adam and Eve sinned and thus were guilty of the original sin (B) They were punished for their sin, (C) All of their descendents are still being punished for their sin, (D) By accepting Jesus as their messiah they can bypass the punishment for the sin. The difference is that Catholics say that sin is inhertited along with the guilt, while Orthodox Christians say that sin ins't inherited (does this mean that God is punishing the innocent?). RK
Judaism's view of this issue does have significant similarities; most Jews see the story as an explanation of how man came to have a finite lifespan and free-will, rather than immortality but no free-will (which might have happened if Adam & Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of Life). Judaism's theological emphasis on this story is different, as we believe that nothing we say, do or believe will change the fact that humans are mortal and have free-will. Belief in God has no effect on this status. In Christianity, the inherited punishment (Orthodox), or the inherited punishment and sin (Catholic) is one of the prime driving forces behind the faith, as one of the purposes of Christianity (as I understand it) is to overcome the punishment. Mainstream Jewish denominations have no such concern, but there are individual Jewish theologians who have made this point.RK

Maybe we should restructure the article in chronological order, as follows:

  • The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, which talks about their personal sin.
  • The early rabbinic Jewish concept of what this means (Mishna)
  • The New Testament theology of original sin as discussed by Paul, and the various statements on this by early Church authorities.
  • The view of original sin in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity
  • The later Jewish views, in the Talmud and Kabbalah. Point out that some parts of the Kabbalah are closer to the Christian view of original sin.
I was about to submit the below text, when the above suggestion for reorganization was submitted. If we follow that organization plan and spell this stuff out, does "original sin" get its own subpage? --Wesley
I don't think that would be necessary. I propose this entry stay focused on original sin; I just think it would be good to discuss its origins in the primary religious texts, in chronological order, and discuss how different groups view the concept. Also, I will be writing some stuff on Judaism's view of this concept. Most of Judaism rejects original sin outright, but has similarity to Orthodox Christianity's view. However, the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) has some provocative analogues to original sin which are worth mentioning in this entry, even if they are not the same theological concept. Sentence on this issue can be linked to the already existing entry on Kabbalah for further amplification. RK

Ok, we are getting much closer to a common understanding. This is good. This exercise is also making me do some homework, which is good for me at least. The Jewish understanding of what might have happened had Adam also eaten of the Tree of Life is at least somewhat similar to Orthodoxy's. Here's Iranaeus again on why Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden (Book III, Chapter XXIII, as found at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7805_2133414):

6. Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.

So death is in part a way to at least limit sin; other Orthodox theologians see it as a natural consequence of mankind choosing independence from God, the source of life. Severance from one's life source results in death, just as though one were to choose to stop breathing or to stop eating. The Orthodox do not only seek salvation from the consequences of sin, but salvation from sinning personally. (See also the earlier summation by St. Theophan.) A line from the standard morning prayers (matins) reads "Grant, O Lord, that we might pass this day without sin." Standard doctrine is that infants who die without committing sin are received into Heaven. (No concept of Limbo or of Purgatory.) In fact, the infants who were killed by Herod in the latter's effort to destroy the infant Jesus are remembered collectively as the Holy Innocents and revered as saints on December 29 of each year. The Orthodox do practice pedobaptism, but not because the infants would go to Hell otherwise. Rather, it is because they are part of a Christian family and so are immediately received into the extended family of the Church.

Gee, I should be putting this stuff on the Eastern Orthodoxy page. --Wesley

I deleted the text that referred to Augustine's doctrine of original sin as a pre-existing belief that he made more explicit. I have quoted earlier authors who discussed Adam's sin and the remedy to it without reference to any inherited 'taint' or guilt. Please give some evidence to the contrary before you re-insert this claim. --Wesley

It is described by Paul in First Corinthians, chapter 15. Read the entire section, especially sentences 20 to 28. This is a standard Catholic view of Original Sin. Even before Paul was born, varying conceptions of original sin were extant among some Jews; it was certainly extant in the time of Jesus and Paul as well. That's not surprising, as it is a natural way of interpreting the story in Genesis. It was never an official principle of Jewish faith, then or now, but that's a different issue. We can look up some historical studies on this issue, but I am under the impression that this isn't controversial. RK
Well, I read the passage, and I didn't see the reference to "original sin". Maybe you should quote some specific passages and tell us how that they specifically express this doctrine. I see there that Paul did say that death was brought into the world by Adam's sin, which is the same as saying that all of us live with the consequences of that sin, which is what Judaism believes and what Orthodox Church believes (according to Wesley), but which is not the same as the doctrine of "original sin" as taught by the Catholic Church.
Paul doesn't use the phrase "original sin", as this name for his theology wasn't invented until later, and its not the clearly developed theology that Augustine had. But he describes the basis of it here. Many other Christians and non-Christians see it , which is why most Christian denominations do believe in original sin. I guess Eastern Orthodoxy reads this text differently. Maybe we can write this into the entry, saying that Catholics and Protestants read this biblical text as describing the basis of original sin, while Eastern Orthodox read it in another way, and both ways are equally legitimate? RK
Just as long as you put a some on the Protestants who believe this way. My experience and knowledge is not Eastern Orthodox, but mainstream Protestant, such as Baptist, and Methodist. To my knowledge, Lutherans hold to Original Sin as a doctrine, but other protestants have more variety of belief. In fact, any church that rejects pedobaptism probably also rejects Original Sin, as they are tied together. (And that church probably has some concept of Age of Accountability as well.) Certain doctrines form cohesive sets. -- BenBaker
As a clarification Original Sin as a doctrine is the guilt of sin passing on to the children. "original sin" uncapitalized is the doctrine that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world (and hence death) which I would be surprised if any Judeo-Christian belief system would disagree with. I'm not sure how other religions explain that death is the 'lot of mankind'.

I have a question regarding this paragraph:

Both Jews and Christians believe that there will be some sort of afterlife. Protestant Christianity generally posits that one can be saved through the acceptance of Jesus as a saviour, although some variants of Protestantism do teach that salvation is available to followers of other faiths as well.

Which variants of Protestantism teach that salvation is available to other non-Christian faiths? I can't think of any off-hand, unless you count the 10% of Unitarian Universalists that call themselves Christian. Who am I forgetting? Is the list short enough to name the exceptions? --Wesley

Quakers who identify themselves as Christian and who concern themselves with the question of salvation believe that salvation is available to other faiths. However--Quakers don't consider themselves Protestants, so that doesn't really count. -- Egern

(All of this entry is an archive of earlier discussions)